3 ms·

Hmm. Tangent. How do these software library subscriptions work? Do you have to pay as long as you distribute the app? So, say, if a game is on Steam and whoev

Hmm. Tangent. How do these software library subscriptions work? Do you have to pay as long as you distribute the app? So, say, if a game is on Steam and whoever put it there stops updating the game and paying for any subscriptions they were using during development, say because they retired, do they lose the right to distribute the game and have to take it down? Great for software preservation in this case.

raziel2p 3y ago
Depends entirely on how much effort the company wants to put to enforce it legally. If a company has 2 customers, A and B, nothing's stopping them from sharing updates/patches with each other if 1 of them stops paying the license fee, and/or stripping the part of the code that phones home to check for a valid license. I think the key insight is, it's not worth focusing too much on this segment, except in very specific markets (maybe super-expensive sofware, like the Adobe suite, DAWs, AutoCAD etc.). The majority of paying clients don't go through this amount of effort, and unless they're cheapskates (in which case you might not want them as clients regardless), will just pay and be honest customers, appreciating regular updates and support.
- nottorp 3y ago
  Adobe does not sell a software library and you don't need to distribute anything from them, just the output of their software. Of which, at least for now, they haven't managed to take ownership. However, for libs like, say, Qt and this library, it's different. I haven't looked closely at licenses for subscription based stuff, has anyone?
joshuaissac 3y ago
> Do you have to pay as long as you distribute the app? This depends on the licence. In this particular case, the licence agreement[1] appears to allow continued distribution of the end product as long as the subscription was active at the time of development, and the licensing terms have not been breached. Relevant parts of the licence agreement: > Term. This Agreement shall commence on the date on which Licensee [...] obtains a copy of PySimpleGUI, and shall continue thereafter until terminated as set forth herein. > Library. Licensor grants Licensee a [...] license during the Term [...] to redistribute the Library to recipients of its Licensee Applications > "Authorized Developer" [...] is either (1) a Hobbyist Developer; or (2) a Commercial Developer who has purchased an active PySimpleGUI paid license hereunder, in effect at the time of development, which is fully paid up 1. https://www.pysimplegui.com/eula https://www.pysimplegui.com/eula
- gcr 3y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't the clause under "Library" only grant a license to distribute the library "during the term," which is terminated when the developer doesn't renew their subscription? Directly quoting what you wrote. What am I not seeing?
  - joshuaissac 3y ago
    I am not a lawyer either, but my understanding is that 'the Term' refers to the term of the agreement, which ends when the agreement is terminated, not to the active term of the subscription. They specify a few ways in which the agreement can be terminated, but ending the subscription is not one of them.
    - nottorp 3y ago
      This is not just about pysimplegui, they just triggered my thinking about it. Anything depending on subscription based libraries has to consider it. Especially if the seller is all lawyered up like Digia. What if you stop selling an application, and 10 years later there is a case for selling it again unmodified? Which is exactly what happens with old games on GoG, for example. Would you need to back pay the subscription for 10 years?
      - joshuaissac 3y ago
        In general, it would depend on the specific licence and the jurisdiction. The licensor can demand that the final product using the library can only be distributed while there is an active subscription in place (which is not the case here with PySimpleGUI). They may even say that the end users only have the licence as long as someone is paying a subscription. There are cases where that might make sense. For example, if the library is relying some online/cloud service operated by the licensor or their agent, and it costs them money to keep it running.
        nottorp 3y ago
leros 3y ago
It's generally on the honor system. Having to pay for certain usages is likely in their terms of service so they could theoretically sue you if you didn't have a license. Big companies will pay to be legal. Or to get a support package. Small companies will probably pay out of honor. Some people won't pay but most of them probably wouldn't pay if forced anyway. I support a UI framework that is just an npm package. I could theoretically use it for free, I just wouldn't get support. I pay because it's the right thing to do and it's not very expensive.

raziel2p 3y ago

Depends entirely on how much effort the company wants to put to enforce it legally. If a company has 2 customers, A and B, nothing's stopping them from sharing updates/patches with each other if 1 of them stops paying the license fee, and/or stripping the part of the code that phones home to check for a valid license. I think the key insight is, it's not worth focusing too much on this segment, except in very specific markets (maybe super-expensive sofware, like the Adobe suite, DAWs, AutoCAD etc.). The majority of paying clients don't go through this amount of effort, and unless they're cheapskates (in which case you might not want them as clients regardless), will just pay and be honest customers, appreciating regular updates and support.

nottorp 3y ago
Adobe does not sell a software library and you don't need to distribute anything from them, just the output of their software. Of which, at least for now, they haven't managed to take ownership. However, for libs like, say, Qt and this library, it's different. I haven't looked closely at licenses for subscription based stuff, has anyone?

joshuaissac 3y ago

> Do you have to pay as long as you distribute the app? This depends on the licence. In this particular case, the licence agreement[1] appears to allow continued distribution of the end product as long as the subscription was active at the time of development, and the licensing terms have not been breached. Relevant parts of the licence agreement: > Term. This Agreement shall commence on the date on which Licensee [...] obtains a copy of PySimpleGUI, and shall continue thereafter until terminated as set forth herein. > Library. Licensor grants Licensee a [...] license during the Term [...] to redistribute the Library to recipients of its Licensee Applications > "Authorized Developer" [...] is either (1) a Hobbyist Developer; or (2) a Commercial Developer who has purchased an active PySimpleGUI paid license hereunder, in effect at the time of development, which is fully paid up 1. https://www.pysimplegui.com/eula https://www.pysimplegui.com/eula

gcr 3y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't the clause under "Library" only grant a license to distribute the library "during the term," which is terminated when the developer doesn't renew their subscription? Directly quoting what you wrote. What am I not seeing?
- joshuaissac 3y ago
  I am not a lawyer either, but my understanding is that 'the Term' refers to the term of the agreement, which ends when the agreement is terminated, not to the active term of the subscription. They specify a few ways in which the agreement can be terminated, but ending the subscription is not one of them.
  - nottorp 3y ago
    This is not just about pysimplegui, they just triggered my thinking about it. Anything depending on subscription based libraries has to consider it. Especially if the seller is all lawyered up like Digia. What if you stop selling an application, and 10 years later there is a case for selling it again unmodified? Which is exactly what happens with old games on GoG, for example. Would you need to back pay the subscription for 10 years?
    - joshuaissac 3y ago
      In general, it would depend on the specific licence and the jurisdiction. The licensor can demand that the final product using the library can only be distributed while there is an active subscription in place (which is not the case here with PySimpleGUI). They may even say that the end users only have the licence as long as someone is paying a subscription. There are cases where that might make sense. For example, if the library is relying some online/cloud service operated by the licensor or their agent, and it costs them money to keep it running.
      - nottorp 3y ago

leros 3y ago

It's generally on the honor system. Having to pay for certain usages is likely in their terms of service so they could theoretically sue you if you didn't have a license. Big companies will pay to be legal. Or to get a support package. Small companies will probably pay out of honor. Some people won't pay but most of them probably wouldn't pay if forced anyway. I support a UI framework that is just an npm package. I could theoretically use it for free, I just wouldn't get support. I pay because it's the right thing to do and it's not very expensive.